Loya Case: Dave Concludes Submissions, Stresses The Need For Cross Examination Of Judges And Commissioner [Read Written Submissions]

“They (the district and Bombay High Court judges) may be respectable members of the judiciary, but they cannot go un-controverted”, submitted Mr. Dave.The Hearing of writ petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI special judge Loya resumed before the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar on Thursday.Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave has again emphasized the need of cross examination of Judges, Commissioner and family members of Judge Loya. he has drawn the attention of the bench to Rules 1 and 2 of Order IX of the Supreme Court Rules of 2013.Repeating that the two Bombay High Court judges had said in the interview on November 27, 2017 exactly what the four judicial officers have written in their respective letters, he submitted that the cross-examination is necessary to extract the truth.On the importance of cross examination, he cited the Presidential Reference [(1997) 3 SCC 216].Dave citing the Constitutional bench judgment in C. S. Rowjee v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1964) submitted;“In the said case, government actions were struck down for the want of affidavits...in our situation, we have based our petitions on the article in the Caravan. In such cases, the cause and the facts and circumstances leading to the death are not easily discernible. We are relying on investigative journalism to press for an independent investigation”.Further, he mentioned the judgments in Kochuni v. State of Madras [(1959) Suppl. SCR 316] and Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra (1952) in the context of significance of affidavits.“They (the district and Bombay High Court judges) may be respectable members of the judiciary, but they cannot go uncontroverted”, submitted Mr. Dave.“If judge Loya died in unnatural circumstances, it is an attack on the independence of the judiciary. Please do not look at these petitions as adversarial as being viewed by the state of Maharashtra”, he remarked.Reiterating his earlier objection to the appearance of Senior Counsels Mukul Rohatgi and Harish Salve on behalf of the state of Maharashtra, he advanced, “if the Attorney General appeared on behalf of the state and took the same stance, I would have no objections. But these counsels have appeared for Amit Shah earlier”.Expressing displeasure at this, Mr. Rohatgi said, “We are only doing our duty”.Insisting on the need for an independent investigation, he Cited the judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha [(1984) 3 SCC 161] wherein, in context of the issue of bonded labour, it was observed, “even if the State Government is on its own inquiry satisfied that the workmen are not bonded and are not compelled to provide forced labour and are living and working in decent conditions with all the basic necessities of life provided to them, the State Government should not baulk an inquiry by the court when a complaint is brought by a citizen, but it should be anxious to satisfy the court and through the court the people of the country, that it is discharging its constitutional obligation fairly and adequately and the workmen are being ensured social and economic justice”.When Mr. Dave repeated the order dated February 23 of the apex court issued notice to the Delhi Police in the Sunanda Pushkar death case despite the maintainability of the PIL filed by Subramanian Swamy not having been established, Justice Khanwilkar retorted, “That case is different because therein the Delhi police was already required to submit the investigation report several days before the said order but it had failed to do so”.“In the absence of affidavits, how can I attack the veracity of the their letters on the grounds of contempt or perjury?”, Mr. Dave inquired.“Any documents that have been tendered across the bar are a part of the record. Proceedings for contempt and perjury shall still lie”, assured Justice Chandrachud, adding, “Any order for further investigation that we may pass shall depend on the adequacy or inadequacy of the documentary evidence before us”Thereupon, Mr. Dave cited the judgment in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [(1995) 1 SCC 421], wherein it was observed, “Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice...These prefatory remarks well project the importance of the point under consideration in this suo motu contempt action taken against respondent Anil Kumar for his having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Delhi to Unnao...People would have faith in courts when they would find that (truth alone triumphs) is an achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which ends in victory) is not only inscribed in emblem but really happens in the portals of courts”.Proceeding to discuss the events leading to the preparation of the discreet inquiry report, he...

Loya Case: Dave Concludes Submissions, Stresses The Need For Cross Examination Of Judges And Commissioner [Read Written Submissions]

Mehal Jain

Tags